Talk:Alexander Mashkevitch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Busted in Turkey[edit]

This Billionaire has been arrested in Turkey with underage prostitutes but released on red passport. http://www.milliyet.com.tr/savarona-ve-gizemli-adam/guneri-civaoglu/siyaset/yazardetay/02.10.2010/1296356/default.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.91.145 (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

This statement is invalid information we apologise for the inconvenience and will try to put a correct statement back as soon a possible

Control of One-Fourth of Kazakhstan's Economy[edit]

This seems to be an unsubstantiated rumor reprinted in an online newsletter. Kazakhstan's GDP is $168 Billion, while ENRC's total revenues are around $4 Billion, with the Kazakhstani government holding about a quarter stake in the company. Mashkevich's total net worth is around $1 billion. So how does this equal one-fourth of Kazakhstan's economy? Konchevnik81 (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiography[edit]

who wrote this article? he? his wife? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.193.107 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

In its current form this article is poorly formatted and seems to largely promotional. I am reverting to an earlier, better sourced version for the time being.141.163.196.7 (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. As I mentioned a little while ago, some user was editing the article to give this guy a more favorable review (see article history). These changes was made over several months without anyone noticing them. I would recommend you all to put this article in your watchlist, just to make sure that this don't happen again. Bricklayer (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sbakuria has put the article back to how it was (poorly formatted and promotional), I am reverting again and I'll leave a message on his/her talk page explaining myself. I hope this is acceptable. 141.163.196.7 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course and it's a absolutely correct decision to make this user aware of the problem. I once again had to revert this user's edit. Bricklayer (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another revert, I think some kind protection for the article should be requested, or some third party intervention to resolve this conflict, but I'm unsure about how to achieve this. I will admit that there are issues with the version I have reverted to and it does need improvements, but I think this reversion problem should be settled first, then we can move forward with improving the article. If only Sbakuria would detail his/her concerns on this talk page. I'll leave another message with Sbakuria. 141.163.196.7 (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted to the correctly formatted version. PhilKnight (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And again. I think a request for comment on user conduct could be the next step. PhilKnight (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC concerning Sbakuria has been made Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sbakuria. Rtdixon86 (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation?[edit]

Having looked at the link at the top of Sbakuria's version, I think there might be an issue with copyright. The first section at least, appears to have been cut-and-pasted from the website. Opinions? Rtdixon86 (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's indeed a problem too. I believe however that the biggest issue with Sbakuria's version is that it's NPOV and promotional, leaving out the serious accusations that has been made in the past. Anyone knows how to speed up process on the case regarding this user? Bricklayer (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we may have to wait for the RFC (30 days I think) to run its course, then look at arbitration. However, the copyright issue may be a quicker way of stopping Sbakuria's edits. I'll investigate it. More soon. 141.163.196.7 (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to log in when signing the above. I just want to suggest being careful when reverting Sbakuria's changes because of the Three-Revert Rule, looking at the edit history, there may a danger of falling into that trap. Rtdixon86 (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response and yeah, that sounds like a good idea to me. Also, thank you for making me aware of the Three-Revert Rule. It all makes sense to me (this ended up sounding rather ironic, but I mean it). Bricklayer (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Alternative[edit]

I've placed the other version here Talk:Alexander Mashkevitch/Temp for the time being.Rtdixon86 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Improving references[edit]

I'm attmepting to improve the references and find further sources so that the claims made in the article are on firmer ground. Rtdixon86 (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

assertions of libel[edit]

Recently Sbakuria removed some material from the article, particularly, details about the Trio and its doings. Sbakuria really needs to start discussing, but the issue is worth looking at. Frankly, I think some of the material that Sbakuria removed may need to be removed, and much of it needs to be rewritten, other things need to be properly sourced. Specifically:

  1. "Using offshore companies with a web of Swiss bank accounts, the Trio, with the help and support of President Nursultan Nazarbayev, gained control of the recently privatized chromium, alumina, and gas operations in Kazakhstan (some of the largest ones in the world).[2]" -- not supported by the source. The source discusses such deals by Chodiev but not by the Trio. Mashkevitch is never mentioned, nor is his relationship with Nursultan Nazarbayev. That source appears irrelevant to this topic.
  2. "Despite criticisms and repeated reaction from international watch groups and the opposition, the Trio was able to extract billions of dollars out of Kazakhstan and into Switzerland in the late 1990s.[3]" - this business of "extract billions of dollars" is not in the source. [3] is about the charges against the Trio for money laundering. It never mentions switzerland, nor the amount of money alleged to have been laundered.
  3. "In return for turning a blind eye to this, the Trio paid generous bonuses to Nazarbayev, with whom Mashkevich "enjoys special relations."[4][5]" -- this is awfully strong wording! [5] does describe Mashkevich as having a special relationship to Nazarbayev. [4], however, is a much less reliable source: an interview, whose author alleges that certain bribes were probably taking place. It certainly isn't enough to say that there was a quid pro quo specifically for money laundering.
  4. "Mashkevich and other members of the Trio worked with U.S. businessman and former Exxon Mobil executive James Giffen, who is awaiting trial in a New York court under the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Passed in 1997, the F.C.P.A. makes it unlawful for any American to bribe foreign officials, either directly or through an agent, "for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business."[6][7][8]" -- how are the charges against James Giffen or the details of the FCPA relevant to this article? If Mashkevich is named in the allegations, that would be one thing, but I don't see that he is in those sources.

I'm hesitant to change the article right now because I'm not confident that my understanding of all these sources is perfect but a substantial change may be required. It feels, overall, like this segment of the article is listing allegations against Mashkevitch and his associates in order to portray him as shady, despite that most of the information is not about him. It's feeling a bit like WP:COATRACK to me. Mangojuicetalk 13:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was a concern of mine, but Sbakuria's edits made it difficult to check throught the claims made in the article and the accompanying references, since he was taking the article to another extreme. I going to try and remove some of the claims made and continue checking (and removing if necessary) the references. I'll write a little more soon. 141.163.196.16 (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphs beginning with "As of 2004 Mashkevich was believed to control as much as one-fourth of Kazakhstan's economy.[1][dubious – discuss] Using offshore companies with a web of Swiss bank...." and "Mashkevich and other members of the Trio worked with U.S. businessman and former Exxon Mobil executive James Giffen" seem either weak or do not mention Mashkevich in their sources, so could perhaps be removed from the article.
I have found enough references I think to retain the money laundering claim, however mention of criminal charges may not be appropriate in any Wikipedia article.
Patokh Chodiev probably needs similar attention.
I can find sources claiming a close relationship between Mashkevich and Nazarbayev, but this may not be relevant enough.
According to one source I have found Japan Chrome does seem to owned by Mashkevich, but I can't find any link to Hovelon and Giffen.
The section at the end about Alferon Management partly checks out but might not be important enough for the article.
Summary: Now that I have been able to check the article, some of it could be removed. If ownership of companies mentioned in the Giffen case can be tied to Mashkevich then some of these claims could be reinserted. I'll remove some of the claims and there is at least one dead link which I will also remove. I hope this is OK. Rtdixon86 (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have removed some of the more dubious claims, more work needs to be done. I'm not sure about the WJC paragraph, is it relevant, slightly promotional maybe? I'm not sure. Also the issue with Sbakuria's edits does stretch back to a previous version of this article which has now been deleted. He does seem to be a little more restrained with his recent edits.Rtdixon86 (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexander Mashkevitch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Mashkevitch&oldid=1207556629"